Jump to content

Talk:Physiology of decompression

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B-Class review

[edit]

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.

  2. Comprehensively cited. checkY
  3. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

  4. Not fully comprehensive, but fairly extensive. checkY
  5. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

  6. Complies. checkY
  7. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

  8. Complies. checkY
  9. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

  10. Not an easy subject to illustrate, but there are some images.checkY
  11. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

  12. Looks OK. checkY

Good for me. Promoted to B class. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Physiology of decompression

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Physiology of decompression's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Perdix":

  • From Diver navigation: Perdix Operating Instruction Manual Revision A (PDF). Richmond, British Columbia: Shearwater Research.
  • From Oxygen toxicity: Shearwater Research (15 January 2020). Perdix Operating Manual (PDF). DOC. 13007-SI-RevD (2020-01-15). Retrieved 16 July 2020. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 12:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Decompression stress and risk factors

[edit]

I am thinking of splitting out the material on Decompression stress and risk factors, mainly for size reasons, as that seems the component most suitable for separate discussion. Opinions are welcome, particularly if supported by logical reasons. At this stage there is no urgency. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

occupational health and safety

[edit]

outline types of OSH documents 2C0F:FE38:232C:D97:1:0:3A7E:BA76 (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]